tv Washington This Week CSPAN January 19, 2014 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
care? it does not start until your 5.ld is you have no options, there is no affordable options. imagine what you do as a single mom. women,the earn ergs are a lot of them are single women. do? you look for a mother perhaps. if your informal caregiver is sick? work.ss you will probably get fired if you have no sick days. you won't be promoted. you lose out on every bitter of economic potential and economic have becauseou there is no affordable day care option. we dos important, universal pre-k. children have the chance of early child chood education they able to reach their
potential. skills every child in america needs, any childhood will tell you this fact and so will ever mother. the first five years of the child's life is the window we have to give the most essential skills for success. millions of families that are struggling this is an they won't get. the block that youly on, should not determine the success of the life that you have. the is why we need to make investments today to bring affordable pre-k to every child in america. this gives every child a chance own to make strong sure their hard work takes them go.far they can every dollar that you invest in - it is anducation,
important for our overall today. it means more working mothers get to stay in the work force, for their children and stay on a path to advance their careers. the wholeod for economy. critics say our debt and we can't afford this. i agree we have to do more to the deficit under control. every budget we write is about we fight for. in a global economy, when we're countries and markets in every corner of the - can'te kanlt afford to step. to lose a a strong early childhood education is one of the best can do to propel more ads out of of poverty on
sturdy path to a brighter future. ourhould invest in children. the last piece is probably the most observe. for equal work. the promise made 50 years ago equal pay agent. a promise that is broken every single day in this country. today, women make up nearly half population.'s inen are outearning men advanced degrees. still to this day, men are outearning women for the same work. average, women earn 77 cents that a manollars earns. earns 58 cents on the dollar. it has to change. how can two income family or the where the mother is the sole breadwinner get ahead if
they are right turn short changed every month? if we want to have a growing for morend a chance families to get ahead, simply pay women fairly for the work they are doing. it is that simple. it is a huge economic engine. you pay a dollar for a g.d.p. you can way the by 4%. plain common sense and it is the right thing to do. intoe conclude, 50 years the war against poverty with the ink stacked against many this economy. let's live up to what the meant to be,m was it is a dream that makes our country, the land of opportunity. a dream that says it doesn't matter from where you start, off.work pays you can get to the american dream and earn your future. for too hong has too manyasbeen out of reach for
people. let's do what we can do and change the course of america's middle class. it will be women who will lead the way. when women lead this fight, we will end poverty in america. whenever american woman and family gets a fair shot they achieve their full potential, will america ever be to achieve hers. thank you. [applause] >> can everybody hear me all right?
senator, thank you so much. that was quite an exhilarating challenge to all of us. if i could summarize your agenda for american opportunity, it has five planks. paid leave, raise the minimum wage, affordable childcare, universal pre-k, and equal pay for equal work. they are all really important issues. i want to try to relate them back to what we will be discussing all day. you mentioned the war on poverty and the fact we are celebrating an anniversary and everybody is talking about that. one of the academics that is here today from columbia university. her colleagues have recently done a study which you may or may not have seen. i found it is very interesting.
although many people on the right have said that the war on poverty, poverty won, it did not work. their study shows that the war on poverty reduced poverty appropriately measured by 10% or 11%. there is another message coming out of that study and out of this discussion we are having now. we did pretty well creating a safety net for people at the autumn who were not doing very well. we did not do as good of a job at changing the labor market to achieve middle-class status through their own efforts at comic -- becoming self-sufficient. there are some elements that speak to that. some that are just catching people and helping them when
they are down like unemployment insurance is part of the safety net. pre-k programs are part of helping people climb the ladder. there was this study of the head start program that said it was not having the kinds of effects that we earlier thought that it would have. when you think about -- i am talking about long-term now. when you think long-term, some of us worry and think tank land, what do you think we need to do to improve long-term opportunities for people to be self-sufficient?
it is not an argument against helping them if we are -- if they are down on their luck. >> the most important change we need to make is recognizing the change of the face of the workforce. most of our workforce policies of were set in place in the 1950s, 60s, 70s. if a block had 10 homes on it, seven of the husbands would he going to work and the wife would stay home. now five have two parents working. three have a single mom working. only to have a parent staying home with the child. if you create a work waste that has enough flexibility to accommodate families, you will constantly be undervaluing the underperformance of your workers. women are typically the primary caregivers for both caregivers
-- children and aging parents. you need a more family-friendly workforce holocene. that means equal pay for equal work. make sure that they are not getting shortchanged for every month. you do not have women off ramping every time there is a family emergency. that woman never has a chance to give back to the economy. fortier percent of our workforce in new york state is women. you are chained -- shortchanging an economic engine i'm not giving those opportunities. you need that flexibility. something as simple as universal pre-k and affordable day care, that is good for every child that she has. she will need that kind of support where she will not be in the work voice full-time. those are both engines that are being entirely untapped for our
workforce. it is a huge problem. >> it has been an enormous transformation, the fact that women have moved into the workforce. now 40% of the primary breadwinners. hannah rosen wrote a book called "the end of men." one of the reasons we have so many single parents is because the men can no longer make enough money to get married and support a family. is that also a concern? arguing for women's rights to climb the ladder and do better, what do we do about the men? >> they are still being paid a dollar on the dollar. they are being paid fairly for their work. we want work is policies for
families. there may want to be men who want to be primary caregivers during their may be men that want flexibility if there mother or father is dying. if you have family-friendly policies that both parents will be able to take advantage and be able to be there when needs arise. for all of those single-parent families, they need that flexibility. they will help more women than men because it is more often than not the woman who has to sideline her career for family. there are many men in the same situation. >> let's open this up for the audience to ask a couple of questions here. please state your name and your affiliation if you would. right here. right.
>> my name is edna. i am with the world organization for childhood education. i want to point out that robert samuels' column in the post. i want to caution you not to make a dichotomy between child care and early education. i don't think you were. quite often, people do. they see one as quite different than the other. all programs from children six weeks to six years are educational. children are learning all the time. they do not start when they go to school. >> universal pre-k is different than affordable day care. it is a different mechanism.
my children were in daycare. i know the early childhood education they received was tremendous. that day care was $10,000 a year. affordability is a huge problem. there are too many moms that could not use the daycare available to federal workers because they could not afford it. i saw the early childhood education built right in. from infant care right onto pre-k. affordability is as important as universality. >> one more question since we are running out of time. everybody knows you. >> i usually have a really loud voice.
as you know, i am very sympathetic to this agenda you put forward. i am curious why this has not taken hold more within the democratic arty or maybe it will. some of the proposals are obviously consensus proposals like the minimum wage. the package speaks to a lot of different aspects of what we are talking about. will we see more action, not just from women members but party wide? >> i think so. as women and mothers we have particular sensitivity to these issues because we see it everyday. i see what benefit my children get from daycare. i know that i could have done my job well without the flexibility that was given for hague family medical leave for both of my children. when i speak to these issues, i speak very passionately about them.
i know what opportunity is being missed for those who do not have them. i can speak from the heart and also from real life. that is one reason i think these issues are coming to the floor now. i think the democratic and republican party will be able to wrap hold of these issues as a generational issue. what do we need to do to actually make a middle class that can thrive? that can inspire both democrat and republicans. the president gave a very significant speech where he mentioned a couple of ideas just a few months ago. we had speaker pelosi do a very good press event with members of the house on this issue. i think these issues will continue to be talked about. i will do everything i can to make sure that i talk about them a lot.
bipartisan. we began the day with a democrat day with ending the paul ryan. knowledge counts for a lot in congress. oop's career illustrates claim. he is a congressional staffer and we know they are brilliant. second, among arriving in congress he looked around and makes this place run? the answer, of course, is money. source of allthe money. he decided he is going to learn budgetout the federal more than anybody else. two he knewur or more about the budget than anybody else on the hill. senior positions merit hill are based on mitt and logic. interested in the thatt, he was very issued
have to deal with poverty and opportunity, especially opportunity. had top staffers in this area, which is always a key in understanding what a member of concerned about. reaply, he has been doing which is spending a lot of time in inner cities and other poor communities meeting with people who run programs for the poor. not exactly on the top of the list for members of an amazing it is an thing. is learning byhe visiting these poor communities. ryan.irman [applause] >> thanks so much. saw her over in the hallway and she and i had a great talk day.ther i'm a big fan in what they do in
their work. brookings and to crack jokes about coming out of the think tank area. this is my fifth time in the so i feel comfortable coming over here. don't hold it against me. through your report on social mobility, the whole thing. six years ago, i read it last week. grateful that you invited me the and i'm pleased to see conversation occurring. i was asked to talk about two things, first, how do i see the of opportunity? second, what are some ideas to opportunity? what is opportunity and how do we get more of it? here's how i see it, behind every opportunity is someone who takes a chance. mentor a child, you hire people, normally
strangers, they form a bond and to createtogether value, spread knowledge, to help each other. toi would say the key opportunity is trust and government when used wisely can trust.e that take interstate highway system. that is something we can all on.e of course, the federal government should build the thatay system because would encourage interstate commerce. it did for a simple reason, it to interact. the more people interact, the more they trust each other. all know, where there is collaboration. where there is collaboration, there is economic growth. to me, when it comes to judging a particular policy reform, i got a simple test. does it bring people together or apart? pull them does it increase trust in
stifleration or does it them? government is a very powerful tool. powerful, you might say. just as it can build and frustrate andcan deter. as a conservative, i look at and look at his insights. one of his great insights is taxes don't just take taxes out of people's pockets, they out of the work force. thatcan make them work extra hour. just as government can increase opportunity, it can destroy it as well. is no greater opportunity than for government to the markt and miss than l. b.j.'s war on poverty. marks the 50th anniversary of the war. pointed tohey have
the money they created. 47 million people live in poverty. it is the highest rate in the generation. we're spending a lot. it is not working. missing its mark. well, why? i think it goes back to opportunity. poverty is not some form of deep deprivation. it is a form of isolation. is anything i'm learning, it is that. what do we know about the poor? ron would say they are less likely to graduate from high likely toey are less work full time, and they are marriedely to get before they had kids. they are cut off from education, work, and family. government isn't solely responsible for these trends. ways, government is deepening the divide.
has the past 50 years, it built a hodgepodge of programs missing links.e because these programs are so disorganized and dysfunctional, they pull families closer to away from society in so many ways. our goal should be to reintegrate the poor into our communities but washington is them up as if they were in a massive quarantine. bring in the poor to expand their access to our society.nd our civil they are not fulfilling their are alll and we, we missing out. remember that poverty is not some rare disease that are immune.us it is the worst strain of a widespread disease, otherwise economic insecurity. makingmilies worry about
ends meet. all of us have felt isolated at times. is why a concern for the poor, it is not some policy niche. be some box check on some new contract with america. goes to the very, very heart of the american experiment itself. so how do we bring in the poor? federal government help? i'm afraid i don't have all of the answers. a little humility in washington start.od i would like to take about a few poverty efforts. two key ideas, simplicity and standards. think they help with one big problem that we call the poverty trap. the central planners rant goo aren't good ag all. washington tackles problems in a
approach. a mole johnson became president, we had social head-start, added job core and among others. after he left office, the government kept adding to al ala bet soup. has at the urban studio, he done interesting work on this topic. because the federal government programs atederal meansent types, they are tested, they are ineligible as they make more money. families face high marginal tax rates. is discouraging them from making more money. what does this mean? mom with twosingle kids living in colorado.
$10,000ncome jumps from to $40,000, she won't keep much extra $30,000. instead, she loses most of it to cuts. taxes and benefit if she is enrolled in programs and food stamps, medicaid, s-chip, her taxes will be as high as 55%. as other enrolled programs like housing assistance reachlfare, the rate will above 80%. in other words, you go to work than 20will keep less cents of every extra dollar you earn. to sure she is not going walk around with a calculator rate?y what is my tax she gets it. ahead anding to get her government is holding her back. be addressed. policy workers are working on this, simplicity. in 2012, britain produced a
far-reaching reform and thigh are putting this idea into practice. is going through a rough patch. there are no two ways about that. maybe you discussed that today. sound.y concept is very we should learn from their experience. programs and it collapsed into one overall payment. the old programs cut off after a amount ofe a certain money. we have experience with this ourselves.idea we have the earned income tax credit. it morewage, it makes expensive for employers to workers.w-skilled but it gives them a boost without hurting their perspectives. many find it increases their low-skilledong workers and it gives families
flexibility. it helps them to take ownership lives.r own rubioast week, marco proposed they get paid once a it is easier for them to plan for the year. assistancerm of takes place, we have to encourage work. there should be standards. is not a novel concept. congress began to require people on welfare to work and dropped.oles child poverty fell by double digits. is, we have not applied this principle far enough. need to do more. a man who is involved at that work., what works is we need to change the way we think about work. a penalty. it is the shortest route back
society. if you're working, you are meeting people. skills.earning new you're contributing to society. that is the best way to get a or get a better job. we want people back this the shareorce so they can their talents and their skills with the rest of us. losing out just as much as they are. in short, federal assistance be await station. it ought to be an onramp, a into the hustle and bustle of life. we have a lot more work to do. a whole hostckle education, criminal justice, and criminal reform, at the state and local levels, they are doing a lot of this hard work. the federal government should lead.em take the i hope i said here is not
radical. hear the howls of protest from certain corners. say to critics who are criticizing new thinking, all i can say is, we want to hear their ideas too. enough.entions are not concern for the poor, concern for the poor does not demand a the status quo. it demands a commitment to results. we should not measure our success by how much we spend in welfare. we should measure our success by how many people we help get off welfare. later this year, i plan to say a this lot more about subject. before i roll out any policy prescriptions for poor families, to hear more from the real experts, the families themselves. there is one thing i have learned after 15 years in congress, washington does not the answers. in fact, sometimes they are
our noses and in our communities, not this this city. to tell me, son, you have two years and one mouth and use them in that proportion. all of us who care so deeply of thehis issue as part american growing experiment, we have to head that kind of advice. just as we need to run the numbers, we need to listen to helpeople we're trying to because they are the people on the front lines. the people in the community facingve the problems their community. trust is the bedrock of the opportunity and the federal trust themhas to with all the respect to the atlliant minds here brookings and the lesser ones at capitol hill. hands on deck. we need to enlist to the poverty fighters that never come to washington. we need to enlist the working
families in the real war on poverty. is only one way to beat poverty and that is face-to-face. for too long, too many people ave watched this effort from distance. it is like this, they say to hard,lves, i'm working i'm paying my taxes, the government is going to take care of this. the government, has encouraged this view. that is not going to cut it anymore. we need everyone to get in this game. involved,en to get community to community, face-to-face. when you're helping people in need, you're helping yourself. if we reintegrate the poor in communities, we will re country.e our people with healthy-growing families, will have a healthy-growing economy. collaboration does not just a growing economy, it builds character. it makes us better people.
makes us a better country. so i want to thank you for your invitation. i enjoy the conversation we're think it ise and i vital to make every single participant. if we have have a great battle of ideas to achieve these get there andll make this moment what it is. thank you very much. appreciate it. [applause] you.ank interesting remark and i'm sure
a lot of people are thinking they are questions going to ask you. a lot of what you say has a ring days was called conservativism? >> i don't like the term because that conservativism in.ot compassion it in.what i know is classical liberalism. respects the individual. it's goal and attempt to help people have the best life and reach their potential. we have to fight for better realize the american experiment. what is that to me? doesondition of your birth not determine the outcome of your life. that is what i was raised - small town,n a irish-catholic family, that came over from
im. potato fan starting to lose sight of that. we're losing mobility, we that but whole generations of americans don't know what that is. explain it or tell it to then, they don't think it is for them. that is a problem. that conservativism is the best answer for this, i would not be who i am. >> i know's to this question but it will get a laugh anyway and expresses what people on the left think about it. tony blare says the only different between compassion it conservativism they tell you they are not going to help you are sorry they are not going to help you. ais does show the left is little - it makes jokes about this sort of thing.
i real you don't like the term things you discuss are part and parcel is what most people think local, working face-to-face, helping people in place they live, working with them. thestick them under compassion conserve viaism. who are advocates of moretatus quo say just do of this. that doesn't cut it. it could beo say worse, that is hardly an answer.e sayhat do we mean when we con serve via theism. many call civil society and we
have told people in this is no longer their responsibility to care for others. that is not saying this is a convenient excuse for cutting a g federalr stopping the federalg government's role. is the left made the mistake thinking this is depravation.e we isolated people in our communities and we put up walls separating people from integrating with each other. down thosetear walls. we need to look at how these programs are doing harm trapping people in poverty and how we can thecus on it and turn escalator back on and getting people back into life. this because say as a person in government, it sounds preachy. ignore the culture. you have written all the stuff about marriage, the breakdown of family. these things cannot be ignored but it is not somebody in
tohington that is going solve it. that is our culture, that is our media,ty, churches, everything. we can remove a of barriers that are harming opportunity.th and those are the things we need to focus on. proactive,is what a positive solution would look like. >> republicans are intent on making government smaller, that programs.ing many look at you as being a hero in this movement. that is a necessary part of your war on poverty of attempt to help poor people to cut programs? >> it has nothing to do with the a spreadsheet. it has nothing to do with the what the number auto be. has to be is this working or not. are people getting on with their
hitting their protennial. i believe free enterprise and keeping government limited is the way to go. that doesn't mean we believe in no government. thatlieve in a government is effective. we believe in a government that does thatts role and very effectively. we're not doing that. than weting off more can chew. we're cutting off civil society. can replace missing links in society that can't be replaced by anything but family. at this fight we have because i believe we will lose americanury as an century if we go down the path on.e we have a dangerous demographic, dangerous trajectory we're on. that.dget is part of
the economy and slow economical butth is a big part of that the greatest casualty is the among us is the poor poverty.n when we apply our principles, free enterprise, self-determination, along with a rich,y, you can have mosaic society where people can make the most of their lives. days ofet back to the proactive mobility. people born here or come to this they say i can do it. i can be who i want to be. we can get there if we compete for these outcomes. if we measure all of this stuff at how much money we throw it, how many tax dollars we can something, we will miss the mark. if we measure based on results,
i think we can make a difference. >> let's assume you're right. the real problem is government programs and removing too much authority and local levelsy from and churches and so forth. can you actually foresee that you can convince some of the people in this audience and the media and voters of wisconsin and the rest of the country, especially states like and california that that is true and that government is in the way? balance a budget and cut ofnding and have these kinds initiatives that you're talking it is a better result? can you convince them of that? >> why would i be doing this if i can't do it? a heroic at and you know you're right. you friend of mine said don't want to be sitting on your
your rockingn chair with your grandkid on your knee and said while america went to hell in a hand basket i voted step of the way. i do believe a majority of that whatunderstand is going on today is not working. thesociety is fraying at seams, we have to do something different. status quo isn't working. idealsas based on these that are the founding principles make us sotry that special in the first place, i believe the majority of americans can warm to this, agree to this, embrace this. if i did not believe that, why would i be doing this? what is the point? do i believe that the principles of the reforms that the majority of the reforms of 1996, can be again?y yes, they were.
effective. were do i believe that able-bodied better life and do i believe that people in yes. i think what happens in these we categorize each other. into a each other and this is conservative is heartless and wants toare and just help the rich and there is no government. there is probably in the middle spheres.o i think if we just rely on these character churches, we'll do the whole time. we'll smash against each other. adult conversation about how to restore economic mobility, a conversation about our culture, which is inherently nongovernment. and we that is important can make a difference. i believe that the majority of
americans still believe in the american dream, the american idea. if they knew they could do something to make a difference helpedr communities and it.nce it, they will do >> so i'm going to end by inviting you back to brookings get ready to say what be.re ideas are going to i hope you come back here and tell a big audience. i suspect that we'll have a it.er audience to hear so thank you so much for it was wonderful. >> thanks for having me. thanking mr. ryan.
>> on the next "washington wilson looks at the 2014 agenda for governors state legislatures. after that, the reporter talks the affordability of plans under the health care law. low-income aimed at energy programs. we'll also take your comments by facebook.tter, and beginning live at 7:00 a.m. .astern on c c-span.
tomorrow, you can see former talking about liberals and media. the conservative forum at silicon valley. a preview. mainstream media gotten every major story of our lifetimes, not just wrong but as wrong as wrong can be? well, let me begin to prove this by pointing out one of the good guys. brit stevens is an about writer for the "wall street journal." many years back he wrote a piece close to this. historian looking back at the contemporary leading up to the major events of our lifetime. looking for clues in the
reporting as to the major events to transpyreut will have find that reporting to useless. he is wrong. wrong a that he does not go far enough. that reporting wasn't just useless but anyone who looked wanting tot the time know what might come next around to world would have been led anticipate the exact opposite of actually came to be. what do you think of our news personalour intelligence agencies. the fieldrters in sending back dispatches, withles to provide us information, inside information so we can make good personal policy. fair enough?
anybody who trusted the media, abc, nbc, the everybody but fox. i'm going to put fox to the side for a moment. fox. talk about anybody who trusted the mainstream media as their source intelligence, not only got intelligence, they got intelligence that was opposed to the truth. hisou can watch all of remark at the forum at silicon 11:00 a.m.rrow at c-span.here on >> i think without question the communications activists at this keeping pace where the market place is. place is that the to should do what it can calibrate to the. the times. i think we've reached the point,
given the competition we see, that the fcc needs to be able to take action to bring its the 21stns into century. silos that has us andting wireless companies telephone companies differently everyone though they provide the same service. closely with our colleagues in congress to make that a success. >> monday on the communicators c-span p.m. eastern on 2. >> late on friday, president 1.1 trillion the $1 1*678 the government and to scale back the automatic spending cuts last year. runs under 10 minutes.
[applause] >> hello. hello, everybody. seat. have a seat. now, this is not usually where i signings. [laughter] but in addition to the walk andty to take a when i get a chance to take a walk i seize it. make sure that we did this bill signing here represents the extraordinary work of so many of you. obviously, over the last several dealing withbeen the need to recover from the since the great
depression. sure weolved making were investing in, first and foremost the american people, we help byes stay open, we were helping to make sure the financial system was back on track, that we reformed it so we kinds of see the crisis that we saw again. importantly, that we did everything we can to lay the so we have a middle class in this country that is we'veng and growing and got ladders of opportunity for everybody who wants to work hard ahead. we made remarkable progress over the last five years. not made enough. part of the reason we haven't progress because wes wound --inflighted wounds wounds in this
town. a sequester that we were crisis and not only did that slow our ability recovery and slow hamper economic growth. an enormous affect on all you. a lot of you were furloughed, a who remained during some of these furloughs had to carry extraordinary burdens. so it took a personal toll on toll ontook a perm tol personal your family. yet, due to part after your your strength and you're dedication to do your jobs well, in part of the strong leadership of senator mccluskey
chairman rogers we now have ourll that will fund government, all our vital services, make sure we are able provide the needs for our sure thatto make people get the skills to get that good-paying job. the board our government will be operating without too many glitches year.he next not only is that good for the - the dedicated all public servants in the federal importantly,t most it is good for the american people.
it means we can focus our need to onhere we growing this economy and making sure everyone gets a fair shot try.ng as they we would not be here and we to, you know,ble sign this legislation if it wasn't for your work and dedication. this is my way of saying thank you. toant to say thank you silvia, brian, and the whole team here and everybody represented. bigness gracious, that is a piece of business. that is a big bill. [laughter] i'm always interested in where do they have the boxes for the really big ones? makes them. [laughter] what that represents is just and hours and weekends, know, nights where people are paying attention and
sweating the details. what you do. are, aren't numbers, these you know, homeless folks who are housing, this is laid off worker who is finding that that allows them to save a home and get back on track. some young scientist who maybe going to find a cure for alzheimer's. that is what those numbers represent. you.is because of so thank you for your good work and without further delay so you start your weekends and i've back somebody is having a birthday today. i have to make sure i pay them some attention. i'm going to sign the bill. [applause]
this week on "q&a," "new york times" photographer doug mills discusses his photographs and the new technology he uses in covering events around the world. djgx >> doug mills "new york times" white house photographer. what's the status of the relationship between the photographers now and the president? >> well it's been a rough couple months. there's been a lot of push back from the press obviously trying to get more access from the still photographers. and we had a meeting with jay carney and members of his staff and. it went really well. among the white house correspondents board of association, excuse me